Hi, first off I would like to introduce myself. My name is Panos, and I am a computer enthusiast who loves to benchmark. I am new to the blog scene, but I hope you guys like it here.

My first goal is to finally get some AMD FX 8150 benchmarks at a decent overclock. I have noticed that many websites, except for overclockersclub.com, really have not pushed FX to its limits. On top of that, poor FX is always paired with a more lower end card! Remember how AMD recommended using a 6990 with the FX 8150 in their original FX promotional video?

In this benchmark, the single core performance of an overclocked AMD FX 8150 CPU @ 4.8 Ghz is better than a 3.7 Ghz (tubro) i5 2500k, but worse than a 4.0 Ghz i5 2500k.

Second Pass Results (Multi-threaded Performance) :

When all cores are used FX shines! Performance is well over a i7 2600k @ 4.5 Ghz, but less than 2 fps shy of a i7 2600k @ 5.0 Ghz. I am not sure about the low 5.18 ghz 2600k score =S... but its well over that aswell. It should also be notes that 3960x at 3.8 Ghz Turbo is not much faster than a 4.8 Ghz FX 8150.

This benchmark is well designed to take advantage of Bulldozer's architecture, but what about others?

Finally a benchmark that utilizes GPU! We will see here whether FX bottlenecks or not while overclocked to 4.8 Ghz. The score to really look at is GPU score (as this directly relates to fps of the rendered scenes), but because the total score also heavily relies on GPU score (especially in the Extreme Preset) it is also a good measure.

RESULTS:

3DMark11 Performance Preset:

AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz
6990 OC @ 990/1500 Mhz

Compared Results (with several 6990 OC's) :

As you can see the graphics score of my OC'd 6990 does not fall systematically behind intel rigs with similar GPU OC's. My GPU Score of 12046 is a clear winner over the rest of the rigs tested., however with combined and physics scores also put into consideration FX falls behind with a total score of only 10318.

The most noted comparison is that with the i5 2500k at 5.35 Ghz with a 6990 @ 1000/1420. Although it manages to squeeze out slightly higher combines/physics score, it still seems to bottleneck in GPU scores. The only intel cpu coming close to FX GPU score is the 3960x.

It should be noted that the OC on the 6990 does play a role in GPU score, so take these results with a grain of salt. a 930 Mhz OC is still 7% below a 990 Mhz OC, but nevertheless we can determine that FX does not heavily bottleneck when it is overclocked to 4.8 Ghz. What about Extreme Preset?

3DMark11 Extreme Preset:

AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz
6990 OC1 @ 880/1250Mhz
6990 OC2 @ 990/1500 Mhz

- - - OC1 - - - 6990 @ 880/1250Mhz

- - - OC2- - - 6990 @ 990/1500 Mhz

Comparison (from Hexus.net) :

- - - OC1/OC2 - - -

The most noteable comparison is between my stock 6990 @ 880/1250 paired with my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz, and their stock 6990 with the exact same clocks paired with a 980x @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo. The difference in score is mostly due to a difference in Graphics Score, as the 980x generally destroys the FX in physics and combined results even at stock.

This tells us alot about where FX bottlenecks or not, and the answer seems to be NO, atleast when comparing to a 980x @ 3.6 Ghz. The difference in score is roughly 5%, where the FX is slightly favoured.

When my 6990 is pushed to its stable limits @ 990/1500 Mhz, my score jumps an additional 13%. That is, for a 12/20% (clock/memory) overclock on my 6990. It is clear that an AMD FX 8150 does not bottleneck on Extreme Preset.

These are examples where their GPUS are being bottlenecked. My Stock OC1 (880/1250) Graphics score actually manages to beat a 6990 @ 950/1450 on an 1100t @ 4.2 Ghz. (meaning higher fps). Here is an example where OCing a 6990 will not result in much benefit. (ie. the bottleneck is around that CPU frequency)

It is also interesting to see that OC'd my 6990 is the clear winner against the 980x @ 3.6 Ghz 580 SLI @ stock in the Extreme Preset.

It should be noted that the drivers I used were Catalyst 12.1 beta drivers, and those used in the HEXUS test were 11.4. The difference in 3DMark 11 scores should be negligible however. Also the 3DMark11 version used for my Performance Preset Results is 1.03, while that of the Extreme Preset Results is 1.02.

These are the stated settings in the testing methodology section, however above the actual graph Tom's claims both are set to ultra. Based on the amount of detail given in the given above settings when compared to that given above the plot, I took this to be the settings they used. (but its still not clear :S)

RESULTS:

Source: Tomshardware.com GTX 590 Review

This seems to be one of the few games AMD actually beats intel in with higher end graphics cards. The most notable comparison is when the 6990 GPU is @ 880/1250 between processors. FX truly shines in DX11 games that are more graphically demanding.

Overclocking the 6990 from 850/1250 to 990/1500 ( a clock/mem - 12/20% OC) results in an AVG fps increase of about 15% for both settings (A) and (B). Scaling between a single 6970, and two (in a 6990) is also very good, roughly 95-110% depending on settings.

Allow some error as the drivers are different between comparisons, however this game is sufficiently old enough to have negligible gain between catalysts.

Intels monstrous leap over AMD in CPU Integer Math seems to be the game changer, with 63.4% gain on the FX 8150. But FX manages to beat its older phenom II brother by a whopping 74%. The OC'd AMD FX 8150 beats its intel i7 2600k rival in five out of eight tests, however narrowly loses in the final score. In FPU Score its a dead tie between the 2600k and FX, with the 1100t and i5 2500k lagging behind.

Comparing FX to the i5 2500k in this benchmark, AMD wins in seven out of the possible eight tests, and only loses in the CPU integer math test.

We can really see Bulldozer shine in this benchmark when compared to the older 1100t, and it manages to be right at intels door with performance significantly higher than its intel counterpart, the i5 2500k.

We can see here that the AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz easily trades blows with Intel's flagship model the i7 3960x. Even a stock FX 8150 @ 3.6 Ghz manages to beat the 2600k @ 3.4 Ghz (both with Turbo enabled). Again this is just further proof that when all threads are used AMD shines. This is notable given the tremendous price difference. Good Work AMD!

We can see here that Nahelem bottlenecks heavily when compared to an Overclocked AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz. Comparing at with a 6990 @ 830/1250 Mhz we notice a 24% increase in FPS, and when we overclock the 6990 we notice a 28% increase in FPS. This just comes to show that overclocking a 6990 with an i7 920 pushes it near its bottleneck. This is very impressive for AMD, but how will FX fair against the big guns?

PICK ON SOMEONE YOUR OWN SIZE FX!

CPU 1: AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz
CPU 2: Intel i7 3960x @ 4.7 Ghz

Settings:

source: Vrzone.com

We can see here that an overclocked FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz barely trails an OC'd 3960x @ 4.7 Ghz, but when the GPU is overclocked this difference is easily overcome. It is also interesting to see that an overclocked 6990 easily beats an overclocked 7970, which is interesting given Heaven 2.5 is one of the benchmarks where the 7970 is supposed to shine most.

We can see here that the patch gives a decent boost in performance with AIDA64 across the board with none of the benchmarks showing worse performance than with pre-patched Windows 7. Overall FX fairs fairly well, but the only benchmark where it pulls ahead of all the other CPUs is in CPU Hash. The AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 ghz manages a top 2 spot when compared to the other CPUs in 4/8 tests and a top 3 spot in 5/8 tests. Naturally the 3960x @ 3.8 ghz Turbo manages to beat FX in most tests, but not nearly as singificantly as one would expect.

TechArp H.264 Benchmarks! **Updated with Windows 7 Patch**

Round 1 Revisited!

CPU: AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz

With Patch vs. Without Patch

RESULTS:

First Pass - Single Core Performance!

Single core Performance increases by +2.3% with both Windows 7 Patches installed. This isn't grossly significant, but still welcome! At 4.8 Ghz the AMD FX 8150 manages to beat an i7-875k @ 4.0 Ghz by about +4%.

Second Pass - Multi-Core Performance!

When all cores are active, the windows 7 patch actually manages to bring improvement of +2.4%. This pushes the performance of the AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz above the i5 2500k @ 5.0 Ghz by a whopping +21% and below that of an i7 2600k @ 5.0 Ghz by only -1%.

As we can see, my Gskill Ram does pretty well overall in a 990FX board. Only Write scores benefit greatly from triple, or quad channel memory, and this is shown through the above comparisons. It should be noted that my ram's performance was maximized setting CL to 10, and decreasing the response time from 300ms to 110ms. This change of setting also manages to squeeze out the 7.9 memory rating in WEI! (I had 7.8 with Cl7 / 300ms)

Comparison
We can see that PCMARK 7 is very happy with the Windows 7 FX Patch. The only performance decrease is the system storage score which is probably due to the use of my SSD. Garbage Collection seems to be doing its job however. The most notable increase in performance is in the computation Score, where the patch shows a +16.6% increase in performance. An honourable mention to the entertainment score as well, which noticed a +4.4% increase in performance.

7-Zip Benchmarks Revisited **Updated with Patch results**

7-Zip Benchmarks - With Patch

We remember FX being a beast in 7-zip, how will it fair with the patch?

RESULTS:

Over 100% more performance than i5 2500k @ 3.7 Ghz Turbo

As we can see here, FX manages to marginally benefit from the patch in Decompression only. Compression shows little to no improvement. 7-zip really shows Bulldozer's strength.

DIRT 3 Benchmarks! FX King?

ROUND 12 : DIRT 3 Benchmarks

RESULTS:

source: Tomshardware

As you can see DIRT 3 really takes advantage of FX architecture. The most notable comparison is with the 6990 @ stock settings 830/1250 Mhz. The AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz manages to squeeze out 131.4 AVG FPS and 118.2 MIN FPS, while the intel i5 2500k @ 4.0 Ghz manages to only get 104.3 AVG FPS and 97.0 MIN FPS. Thats 26%/22% MORE FPS. I was even shocked to see this! Good Job AMD!

Also to be noted is the patch's modest improvement in FPS of 2.0%/3.6% for MIN/AVG FPS.

In the TrueCrypt 7.1 benchmark we can see that the AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz beats an i7 990x @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo in all tests, and just trails the i7 3930k. Note that this is using Windows 7 x64 SP1. Comparing to an i7 2600k @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo, across all tests FX wins by an average of over +54%. Bulldozer's architecture is seemingly taken advantage of with this specific benchmark, but now we will look at Ubuntu Linux Performance.

CPU: AMD FX 8150 @ 3.9 Ghz Turbo

OS: Ubuntu 11.10

source: PCimpact

Here we can see that the AMD FX 8150 performs much much better at stock settings when compared to with Windows 7. Linux seems to be taking much more advantage of Bulldozer's architecture, and this just comes to show that optimization for Windows is not near completion, and shows us just what could be in store for Piledriver when it comes out.

AMD FX 8150 @ 3.9 Ghz Turbo

In Linux, FX @ 3.9 Ghz Turbo , FX manages to even significantly beat overclocked (at 4.8 Ghz) performance on Windows 7, and comes much closer to performing on-par with a 3960x. It would be interesting to see overclocked performance in Linux, as I suspect its drastic.

Here we see that the FX Patch brings a decent boost in performance, averaging +5.17% across all 12 tests. The largest performance increase comes in the .NET Arithmetic - Dhrystone test, where we see a +24.6% difference. This is the most significant increase in performance I have yet to see for the FX patch.

Comparing my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz to an intel 2600k @ 4.6 Ghz for 10 of the 12 tests, and a 2600k @ 4.3 Ghz for 2 of the 12 tests, we see an average performance difference of -0.07% , implying that AMD is still not so behind in this notoriously Intel favoured benchmark. The reason that two of the tests were not carried out @ 4.6 Ghz in the .NET Arithmetic scores , but instead @ 4.3 Ghz , is because scores @ 4.6 Ghz were not included in the internal comparison benchmarks listed. Of course this will play into the averaged difference, so I suspect that the 2600k @ 4.8 Ghz should beat the FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz by an average of 5% give or take. I might re visit this later on with my own testing to confirm this.

We can really see that intel and AMD have different strengths and weaknesses across the 12 tests in this benchmark.

We can see here that the FX Windows 7 Patch brings about +1% in performance when compared to without it. This pushes AVP performance with a stock 6990 above that of with an intel 980x @ 4.0 Ghz by +4.3% without AA, and by +23.5% with 4xMSAA. I used Catalyst 12.1b for the pre-Patch scores, and 12.1 Final Build for post-Patch scores.

For Comparison's sake we may also examine results from HEXUS.net with Two 7950's @ 900/1250 in Crossfire and catalyst 12.1 Final Build (which is also what I used in my updated Patch FPS). This test is with a Stock i5 2500k @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo. It should be noted that this test is with 4xMSAA but also with 16xAF as well, which the above test with 4xMSAA lacks - in accordance to Tom's review. So take these results with a grain of salt! (Although AF affects fps minimally in this game, while AA affects it significantly).

source: HEXUS

As we can see, Two 7950's OCd @ 900/1250 in crossfire only score a measly 114.0 FPS with an i5 2500k @ 3.6 Ghz Turbo. Despite the fact that this test has AF enabled, the other settings and identical. My Patched FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz with 6990 @ 990/1500 scores 124.5 FPS , which is +9.2% higher FPS than the intel rig with 2 x 7950 OC @ 900/1250 in Crossfire. We can also see that FX with a 6990 @ 990/1500 scores +37.1% more fps than the i5 2500k @ 3.6 ghz with Two GTX 580's in SLI OC @ 797/1594.

POV Ray 3.7 RC3 Benchmarks!

ROUND 15: POV Ray 3.7 RC3 Benchmarks!

source: wikipedia RESULTS:

OK, now for some real world testing. Let's see how FX fairs in a POV Ray render. My results are from testing the internal benchmark, where PPS is pixels per second.

source: overclockersclub
Here we can see that my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz manages to keep up with an overclocked intel i7 2600k at different maximum overclocks on several different Z68 boards. The performance per Ghz of an 8 core FX is roughly that of a 2600k/2700k, and if not only a hair better. Overall, Good Job on this one AMD.

DIRT 3 Revisited ... Again! (By Request)

DIRT 3: Revisited for a third time!

So I had some requests to re bench my FX rig @ 4.0 ghz in the DIRT 3 benchmark to see how well bulldozer fairs against intel's i5 2500k @ 4.0 Ghz.

RESULTS:

source: Tomshardware

Here we see my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.0 Ghz still manages to keep a lead over intel's i5 2500k also at 4.0 Ghz when my 6990 is running at stock settings (830/1250). FX has a +8.6% lead in minimum FPS, and a +20% lead in average FPS. It is interesting to note that when the 6990 is stock, overclocking my AMD FX 8150 and additional 800 Mhz to 4.8 Ghz brings a benefit of +12.3% benefit to minimum FPS, and a +5.0% benefit to AVG fps.

Fritz Chess 4.3 Benchmark!

ROUND 16: Frtiz Chess 4.3 benchmark

RESULTS:

Scaling with this benchmark is awful compared to cinebench 11.5. Fritz single core to multi core performance scales as ~5.44, while Cinebench 11.5 scales as ~6.66. However, single core performance of my overclocked FX 8150 manages to beat an ivy bridge i7 part @ 3.9 Ghz by +5.7%. Single core performance of my FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz falls behind that of an i5 2500k @ 4.8 Ghz by about ~30%.The other results have been gathered from what I have seen with a few quick google searches.

Cinebench 10 benchmarks!

ROUND 17 : Cinebench 10

How will FX fair in this 5 year old benchmark?

RESULTS:

As we found with Fritz Chess benchmark, scaling with this older benchmark is not nearly as good as it should be and as it is found to be with newer and more optimized software, such as Cinebench 11.5. In Cinebench 10, my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz scales as ~5.53, while in Cinebench 11.5 it scales as ~6.66.

Comparing our score:

(from various online sources)

Single Core performance of my FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz manages to beat a Phenom II core @ 4.0 Ghz by +12.1%. Scaling in this older benchmark (2007) is not so pretty. Even for intel's 12 threaded processors, scaling is lower than FX. A hypothetical AMD FX 8150 with ~6.66 scaling would score **32527** , a hypothetical i7 3960x with ~6.49 scaling would score **39219**. (Scaling taken from Cinebench 11.5) Single core performance of an AMD FX @ 4.8 Ghz with compared to an i7 2600k also @ 4.8 Ghz is worse by -37.7% , but multihtreaded performance is behind by only -15%. A hypothetical 2600k @ 4.8 Ghz with ~4.49 scaling would score **35210**. (Scalings taken from cinebench 11.5)

As we can see, scaling seems to be a big issue with older benchmarks. This could be one of the many reasons FX shows many weaknesses in older benchmarks.

x264 FHD Benchmarks

Round 18: x264 FHD benchmarks

RESULTS:

In this benchmark, we can see that my AMD FX 8150 @ 4.8 Ghz slightly beats the performance of a 12 threaded 980x @ 3.57 Ghz. . Performance per Ghz of the FX 8150 (5.40) is higher than the intel i7 2600k. (5.33).

Its interesting to see stremghts and weaknesses in both CPUs across various tests. Most noteably, in the ensight-04 test the i7 3960x @ 4.7 Ghz manages to perform -34.5% worse when compared to my AMD FX 8150 also @ 4.7 with a 6990 at the exact same clock. However, in the proe-05 test, the i7 3960x scores +40.5% better than my AMD FX 8150 rig at the same clocks.

Overall, my AMD FX 8150 only lags behind the i7 3960x rig by -4.4% at the same CPU/GPU clocks on average. Overclocking back up to 4.8 Ghz, and increasing my GPU clocks to 990/1500 Mhz results in only a +2.7% increase in performance when compared to the lower clocked FX.

A Special Thanks to alexmaia_br from the overclock.net community for sharing his results to compare with.

**Cinebench 10 Revisited**

Intel Compiler Patcher scans your hard drive for executable files compiled with the Intel C++ Compiler making it possible to disable the CPU dispatcher in detected files, thus, increasing performance of the software that uses these files with CPUs other than Intel. Give Intel Compiler Patcher a try to see what it's really capable of!

source - Softpedia

Without further ado,

RESULTS:

Here we see a welcome gain of 0.7% in both single core and multi-threaded performance. Also note that scaling has dropped -0.2% down to 5.52 from 5.53.

**7-Zip Revisited - Sandy's Back!**

This time let's see if FX can stand up to its intel counterpart the 2600k.